Since the so-called pro-choice people are only ever pro-abortion, anti-natal, I thought to balance the dialogue out somewhat. I won’t use religion since these people don’t believe in the soul, nor have one, just science and logic.

There are plenty of choices. Sex cannot be separated from reproduction. This is impossible and a lie. Every time someone consents to have sex, they consent to become a parent, should the sex result in conception. This is why expectant parents are congratulated before the birth, as soon as the test flags it within 3-5 weeks, because they are already parents, having conceived. Usually people who are trying for a baby say they are ‘trying to conceive’ and are congratulated on this point in particular. Sex is a medical choice, regarding the body, yet minors are considered fit to make it in some places, an overhang from underage marriages which should be struck off the books. Sexual consent should be the same age as majority, same as marriage and medical decisions (are not abortion, pregnancy and/or gynecological matters, all medical?). The parents of a miscarriage are still parents.

Never have sex unless you’re prepared to become a parent.
This is idiotically simple. If you aren’t prepared to be a parent, you shouldn’t be taking the ‘risk’ of pregnancy aka the consequence of your chosen action. Contraception is a myth, it simply reduces the probability and causes many issues besides. Abortion itself is linked with cancer because the stem cells from the baby take their revenge.

Someone who refuses to see the connection between sex and babies should be legally classed as retarded. Actually no, I think even they get it, that’s unfair to the retarded, they can see causal connections. These fools shouldn’t be saying “no uterus, no opinion” when they have no idea what a uterus is for (clue: not sex, stupid slut). At least the ones who try to get their uterus removed are honest about it.

They learn in the womb. Prenatal psychology.
They are sentient beings. They accrue new information.

The world is majority poor, is killing them a merciful thing to do, to save them from their poverty?
Essentially, these middle class twits are saying “better dead than poor” and “better dead than adopted”.

That would be the strict legal definition yes.

Literally true, no matter how you fudge the numbers skyward. The numbers Auschwitz themselves revised down on new plaques.
Surely a few million of those people would have been geniuses? 3% MENSA standard? Surely a few of them would have been brilliant scientists, trying to cure cancer?

No liberal wants to talk about this one so I’m putting it, dammit.
Abortion is eugenic because only people dumb enough to go in for it will get one.

Reproduction in sexual mammals is the combination of maternal and paternal DNA. This is literally what conception is. The egg and the spermatozoa. That’s it, case closed, there is a novel genetic lifeform.
inb4 what if it doesn’t attach? Naturally, this doesn’t happen. The fertilized egg hangs around long enough to attach undisturbed while the mother is sleeping, unless her uterine lining is damaged (incredibly rare). However, women imitate this sterilizing effect chemically, and it can remain once the chemicals are no longer taken and cause infertility. Look up the infertility forums for women who took the Pill for years and suddenly cannot get pregnant, nature doesn’t like being cheated and will prompt super-early/premature menopause too. This occurs most often when they take it from childhood (based on lies it was OK) because the reproductive system hasn’t finished developing (into the 20s, it stabilizes, shown by regularity, same with men and sperm quality at about 18).
The Pill is a chemical abortifacient. The same as various herbal teas throughout history and just as dangerous.

So Pill is not an option. If a woman wants to be sterile, have your tubes tied or uterus removed.
Temporary sterility is impossible. Fertility is not a tap you can turn on and off at will. Many of the women who make these decisions deserve a childless existence because they have no respect for life.

Pregnancy isn’t a disease. What irks me personally is how the women who pretend to regret it will say their child would have forgiven them. How self-centred can one person be? No, you valued your comfort over their very existence, those children rightfully despise their parents. You are as much a murderer as Jack the Ripper, and he didn’t kill kin. It wasn’t personal, intimate and chosen (except for rape, there was no sex involved because there was no consent, tantamount to using a turkey baster to achieve the same result). Medical urgency is another fitting reason but again, the mother already made a medical choice in conceiving and should try to spare the child wherever possible.

We don’t use a special name for the mother who chooses this (and/or the father who pressures her, it can happen it’s called reproductive abuse), and mothers of miscarriages are still called mothers (correctly), the status is ascribed based on conception. Abortionists don’t deserve to be called mother or father. We should call the abortion-users what they are (barring the exceptions stated for rape and mortality risk) by act: murderers. If it isn’t true, why would it bother them? If they can brag and laugh off their abortion in videos while getting them, they don’t see it as human, why not? The insult shouldn’t stick.

Murder is unlawful killing. The law only permits abortion based on outdated insubstantial medical evidence that fails to overcome the non-personhood assumption. Were these topics reviewed today, as they will be, there can be no doubt. The physiological and psychological reactions observed would grant personhood. It is certainly killing, so perhaps killer would be a more apt descriptor?

Interestingly, UK law doesn’t prohibit the charge of infanticide as applied to abortion. Meaning, if the current other laws were over-turned, say by new medical evidence of personhood, all those who obtained or provided abortions could be charged after the fact. Infanticide is defined as a victim under 12 months, there is no minimum age given.

It doesn’t even mention birth as the starting point, in the murder law itself. Case law, which can be overturned, created the exception.

Malice aforethought is the intention to kill. Well, they intend it to cease living so I guess we can call that one in the affirmative. Interestingly, a foetus was considered a non-human, before proper MRI technology came in to study this question. Personhood is granted upon birth, despite a plethora of evidence henceforth of psychological individual experience and therefore, existence. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal-fetal_medicine

The mother’s life is not superior to the person inside her, there is a symbiosis, a mutual exchange. For example, when she is injured, the foetus sends out stem cells, which she cannot do. They each provide life support.

See? There is no religion required to make an argument against abortion.

This made me laugh.
They have no idea how briefing or reconnaissance or psyops work.
And they’re comparing themselves, and their bloodlust to people trained to do it for a living against people capable of defending themselves, without guilt.

Objectively, it’s a bloody good idea. That’s why we do it already. The whole idea of intelligence work and spying rests on this, and it’s millennia old. What a typical tumblr twit to be ignorant of all of this.
As is the idea of an external ultrasound. Seeing what you’re doing creates a pang of conscience in people with a soul. If you create a life, you take responsibility for it, regardless of whether you intended to create life or not. As for explaining the process of the abortion itself, erhm, that’s called medical consent? Aren’t feminists meant to be big on choice and consent?